• 9 Comments

•

(shaking my head) - HT: Jim West.
"sex Offender Back in the Pulpit"

Yes, forgiveness is a good thing...no, stupidity is not.

The basic story is that Jeff Hannah (youth pastor) was convicted of having sexual relations with four underage girls. In 2001 he was paroled and jointed the First Baptist Church of Romeo (where his new wife was a member - yes, that "new" is significant). Soon after, Hannah was asked to fill the pulpit of that church until a replacement was hired.

What makes me think this is stupid? (and there's more later)

What was the state of Hannah's "repentance"? Pretty much non-existent

In talking to the Sun-Times last week, Hannah, 42, was unapologetic about his crimes, saying his first marriage had been troubled and he'd had "urges."

"I honestly believe that had I been a college pastor, I'd slept with college girls," he said. "But I was a youth pastor. It was less about age and more about who I spent all my time with."

If he had been repentant (I was wrong and I'm sorry, help me not to do it again) he might have had a case. What does the pastor of the church where he committed these crimes say?

The Rev. Steve Farish, pastor of Crossroads Church, which has relocated to Grayslake, said he considered Hannah so dangerous that he warned the Romeoville church and a regional Southern Baptist official.

“We thought he could still potentially be a danger to women and children,” Farish said. “He was never repentant and never told the truth.”

The deacon at First Baptist Church said,

"In our church, we believe in forgiveness," said Del Kirkpatrick, one of the deacons who hired Hannah.

Okay...here's more.

Kirkpatrick hired Hannah as interim pastor (paroled sex offender to be in the pulpit).

So what happened when a permanent head pastor was hired? Well duh...Kirkpatrick (the one with forgiveness, remember?) left the church. WHY?

The new pastor was divorced and then he remarried.

"A pastor should be the husband of one wife," Kirkpatrick said.(...)

Some in the congregation were upset by Hannah's role, but Hamby's remarriage was a bigger controversy, according to church officials. The feud bubbled over last week, when Hamby and Hannah abruptly resigned.

Yes...don't let your lip-service to "forgiveness" extend to the divorced. That would be really bad. Way worse than putting an unrepentant sex offender in the pulpit.

They have made "marriage" the god.

I guess it's a good thing that God came to earth, incarnate, to be our Savior, not to be a pastor (Jeremiah 3:8)

More links to takes on this stupidity story:

Scotteriology

The Roland Report

PastorBlog

•

Ah yes. Tomorrow is the day that we go get college text books (I'm taking Education Psychology and Spanish 1 - again)

I should be getting my new camera (prep for next week) and I'd better be getting my new backpack (also prep)

Possibly on Tuesday (or maybe even Monday night depending on what else happens) we may head over to the "big lake" (Michigan) and sit on the beach for a day (and take the camper and spend the night!

Sunday is the fun trip. I'm getting the new backpack because we're heading up to South Manitou Island for a couple of nights. This involves carrying everything we'll need for a three-day, two-night trip. I desperately want to keep my pack under 35 pounds, thus the desire (not need) for a new, smaller, lighter camera - and pack. There's water on the island, so we don't have to pack gallons of it. But Amanda refuses to share a tent with me, so we each have to carry our own tent (5 pounds down). And the pack is 3.5 pounds. Sleeping bag is 4 pounds. That's nearly 15. Add water, clothing, food, water, first aid kit, etc., etc...

Here's the list so far

...continue reading →

• 5 Comments

•

An excellent article at Parchment and Pen.

Is our Canon of Scripture a fallible collection of infallible books? To start at the beginning (definitions), the word "canon" means "rule" or "measuring rod". The Canon is the "rule" by which the church believes Scripture is measured. The Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches all use different Canons - and the Orthodox churches even vary within that segment.

So the question is: How do we know what books belong in the Bible?

Roman Catholics and Orthodox will refer to the fourth century councils and Roman Catholics will refer to the Council of Trent, where Rome dogmatically defined the Canon is they define it today.

The author (C. Michael Patton) notes that every Bible has a list of books that is included in the Canon (whichever list they are using) - but that list is NOT part of the Canon. We have no infallible list of the Canon IN the Canon. So - since we (Protestants) believe that there is no infallible HUMAN authority - the only final and infallible authority is God and His Word, how do we know (infallibly) that we are reading the right books?

The short answer is that we can't. We cannot be infallibly sure (this side of the grave) that we have the correct list of books.

I didn't know that it was R.C.Sproul that first made the statement that we have a "fallible collection of infallible books". And then - what about interpretation? Are we left with a fallible interpretation of a fallible collection of infallible books? Is it time to migrate to the "one true church"?

Not so fast. In the end, this is an issue of epistemology. Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty?

He answers:

1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements (e.g. a triangle had three sides), there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.

I have some difficulty (as one of the commentors noted) that the supposed need for certainty came earlier than the enlightenment. However, the point remains that the lack of infallible certainty does not relieve us of the responsibility to believe and act upon the probability of certainty (see the article for examples).

2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility.

Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it,

As the author puts it, same river, different boats.  I have a fallible faith in God to preserve His Word.  Another person may have a fallible faith in a church to preserve God's Word.  Either way, we both start with our own personal fallibility.

Is there a place for doubt?  Here's a post. I like this paragraph:

Existential doubt also plays other roles too. It serves to temper an unhealthy certainty that one may have about her direction in life, her agenda, or certain courses of action. It serves to make the Christian aware of the fact that she walks by faith, and not by sight. It serves to remind her that she is wholly dependent upon God’s provision. It also impels her to seek out her brothers and sisters for comfort and encouragement, although sometimes out of fear of rejection or condemnation, she may not do so.

Are we shown doubt in the Bible?  One of my favorite verses:

Mark 9:23-24. And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.”  Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”

The father believed, and yet knew that somewhere, he harbored doubt.  And he asked Christ to help (and Christ did).

Yes, there is a place for doubt.

Without doubt, we are sure.  With surety, it is not faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved.  Now hope that is seen is not hope.  For who hopes for what he sees?

If there is no room for doubt, it is not hope, and it is not faith.

That applies to the Canon as well.  Do I have an infallible assurance of the "right" Canon?  No, but I do have a historical list that includes the books that my Bible include.  I have historical evidence that the Hebrew Jews did not include the parts that my Bible does not include.  I have historical writings that tell me that (world wide), there is room for doubt, but also room for hope and faith that my Bible includes what it needs to include to lead me to eternal life and to a life of Christian faith and conduct.

Is there more?  Some have a fallible faith in a worldly authority that calls itself infallible.  Do I have that same fallible faith in that same authority? No.  For now, I walk by faith, not by sight.

•

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Thirteen Things about Sola Gratia

1….What makes me smarter (better, more faithful, etc.) than my neighbor?

2.... Why did faith arise in me, but not the one next to me?

3.... Was I truly dead in my sin (or just a little sick)? How fallen is mankind?

4....Is it the grace of God (alone) that saves me? Or do I think that I am able (in some small way) to save myself?

5....Grace is God's unmerited favor toward undeserving sinners like us.

6.... Being unmerited, people can do nothing to obtain it. In other words, grace is not conditioned upon anything God sees in us, like our merit or even our good will.

7.... If God left men to their boasted will we would all perish, for no poison-filled well, like us, would freely use their polluted will to choose God, for the Scriptures affirm that the natural man hates the light and will not come into it (John 3:19, 20).

8.... Therefore, in His great mercy and, in spite of ourselves, God regenerates His people through the work of Christ's grace wrought in us.

9.... Exercising faith is our responsibility so, of course, we affirm that all men have a will and make voluntary choices, but since our will is broken and spiritually bankrupt, if we are ever to exercise faith in Jesus Christ it will mean that God must do a supernatural work of grace in our heart to disarm our natural hostility and restore our brokenness lest our hearts remain like stone, and we as a stiff necked people will refuse to come to Jesus Christ.

10.... We do not repair ourselves and then believe.

11.... Rather, we believe because God has repaired us, has illumined our mind that we might see and believe.

12.... God commands men to come but, of themselves, none of themselves, want to. "It is not Him who wills or runs but of Him who shows mercy (Rom 9:16).

13....Why is this important? - Because it gives God all the glory for our salvation. Grace cannot be separated from our election in Christ. Romans 11:5,6 says, "at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

Links to other Thursday Thirteens!
1. (leave your link in comments, I’ll add you here!)

Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!

The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others comments. It’s easy, and fun! Be sure to update your Thirteen with links that are left for you, as well! I will link to everyone who participates and leaves a link to their 13 things. Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!

•

Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Diversity: The fact or quality of being diverse; difference; A point or respect in which things differ.

For two decades, America’s schools and colleges have made a signal virtue of “tolerance” and the “celebration” of diversity. When skeptics have voiced concerns that these bumper-sticker sentiments pose a threat to free speech and intellectual freedom, or threaten to substitute the habits of therapy for those of disciplined inquiry, they have been dismissed as retrograde curmudgeons. (read the article)

Here's the short scoop: In a food coop at the University of Maryland (where the “human rights code” prohibits discrimination on the basis of political beliefs, along with sex, race, and so on), a worker refused to serve and ring up a client because she was "offended" by the client's t-shirt.

The clerk at this grocery and sandwich shop in the student union read her t-shirt’s “Baltimore Zionist District” and “I Stand for Israel” slogans and then declared, “Your shirt offends me. I won’t ring you up.”

Instead of explaining tolerance and diversity (respecting the rights of others to voice their political opinion), a deal was reached where a worker can refuse service to people they disapprove of, so long as they can get another worker to serve that client.

I do have to wonder what the backlash would be if a Christian refused service to a person wearing a gay pride shirt. (for the record, I'd ring the client up and be very polite and kind doing it)

• 1 Comment

•

Two (sort of) related articles

Michigan city could become first in U.S. under Muslim control. No - this does not mean that civil rights or the US Constitution has been suspended in Hamtramck. It means that there are four Muslims on the primary ballot for city council. IF these four end up on the ballot and IF they ALL win seats on the board, it would mean that all four would join the current (one) Muslim (out of six seats) on the city council of Hamtramck, meaning that 5/6 of the city council seats would be filled by Muslims.

If 3 of the runners win, the council will have a 4/6 majority of Muslims and if 2 win, there will be a 3-3 split.

Remember - this is only a primary. At least 3 of the 4 would have to win both the primary AND the general election in order to gain that majority.

Hamtramck was also in the news in 2004, when the city council passed a noise ordnance amendment that allowed mosques to put the Muslim Call to Prayer (below) over loud speakers that would saturate the town with Islam noise - 5 times every day.

Question:- What is the Muslim Call to Prayer?

Answer:- Text of the call in Arabic with English translation:

Arabic: “Allaahu akbar, Allaah akbar, Allaahu akbar, Allaah akbar; ash-hadu an laa ilaah ill-Allaah, ash-hadu an laa ilaah ill-Allaah; ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasool-Allaah, ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasool-Allaah; hayya ala al-salaah, hayya ala’ al-salaah; hayya ala’ l-falaah, hayya ala’ l-falaah; Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar; Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah”

Translation:- “Allah is most Great, Allah is most Great, Allah is most Great, Allah is most Great. I bear witness that there is no god except Allah, I bear witness that there is no god except Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Come to prayer, come to prayer; come to success, come to success. Allah is most Great, Allah is most Great, there is no god except Allah).

Next article:

Iran's Thug-In-Chief: "There is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind" (HT: Jihad Watch)

Make no mistake: this is not just an expression of piety. It is a political statement, a statement of Islamic supremacism, and of the will to wage war until Islamic Sharia is imposed over the whole world. "President: Rule of Islam only way for salvation of mankind," from the Islamic Republic News Agency (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist): (emphasis mine)

What is the connection? The connection is that Islam may not take over the United States by sword - we may simply be outvoted.